]]>https://buffalobeast.com/the-beast-is-brought-to-you-by/feed/2Interview with famed skeptic/trigger warning Michael Shermerhttps://buffalobeast.com/interview-with-famed-skeptictrigger-warning-michael-shermer/
https://buffalobeast.com/interview-with-famed-skeptictrigger-warning-michael-shermer/#commentsFri, 16 Aug 2013 20:06:57 +0000Ian Murphyhttp://buffalobeast.com/?p=17757R. MICHAEL SHERMER is known as an editor, a skeptic, a TED talker, a thinker. Others see him as “that intellectual lightweight who loves Ayn Rand and didn’t ‘understand’ global warming until unconscionably recently.” And that debate, dear Internet, rages on. Last week, a new portrait of Shermer emerged. And it’s pretty rape-y. The portrait. [...]]]>

DR. MICHAEL SHERMER is known as an editor, a skeptic, a TED talker, a thinker. Others see him as “that intellectual lightweight who loves Ayn Rand and didn’t ‘understand’ global warming until unconscionably recently.”

“An anonymous woman told another anonymous woman to tell PZ Myers that I raped her at some unspecified time in the past at some unspecified conference which was alleged reported to unspecified persons who allegedly covered up whatever it is I allegedly did.”

And that debate, dear Internet, rages on.

“Hey, baby, check out mah thumb.”

Last week, a new portrait of Shermer emerged. And it’s pretty rape-y. The portrait. You’ve seen it, the portrait, by now. Ugly stuff, that portrait.

So I decided to e-mail The Sherm and find out what’s going on! So here’s that, without many editin, cuz lazy…

***

Dear Mr. Shermer,

I’m writing a story about the recent ugliness in the atheist/skeptic community/movement (last week, and the past two years) for The Progressive, AlterNet, or Salon (not sure yet), and I’m obviously hoping you’ll be gracious enough to answer some questions.

Phone would be best, but I’d settle for email–any way to get your side of things out there.

Regardless, thanks for all you’ve done for the skeptics of the world.

Best,
Ian

Thank you for the query, but I must decline. My attorneys are handling everything and I’m working on my next book.

Michael

I figured as much, but I had to ask! And have fun writing. (One fortunate thing about all this is that your sales will be higher than ever! Look at Paula Deen. Silver lining? Yesh. Sorry. ) Anywho, will you please forward my request to your attorney? Pretty please? A presumptuous thanks! Or awwww. Thanks for your time.

Best,
Ian

No, they charge a lot by the hour so I don’t feel like paying for your interview. There’s nothing to say Ian. It’s a completely false charge. There’s no story here.

Michael

Ha! Fair point. Crap, are they gonna charge you if I call ‘em? Sorry if that’s the case. Bill me? To be honest, I’m not entirely certain what the charge is? You bought a woman drinks, for god’s sake?! What, she felt taken advantage of the next day–years later?–because you’re a charismatic person, memories are dramatizations of someone’s dogma du jour!? The story’s not about the “charge,” whatever that actual is, it’s about skepticism, truly, no? Figured you were the perfect person to ask! But worrying over the law is probably wise, Michael.. And I’m serious about billing me. I may not pay it–or be able to, rather, but it’s only fair. All the best. And I look forward to the book!

Ian

I haven’t been charged with anything. An anonymous woman told another anonymous woman to tell PZ Myers that I raped her at some unspecified time in the past at some unspecified conference which was alleged reported to unspecified persons who allegedly covered up whatever it is I allegedly did. You print that and you are party to defamation along with Myers. My attorneys are keeping track of everything that could amount to damages to my reputation, and in the court of public opinion it doesn’t matter if the claim is completely made up, people will just believe it. That’s why we have laws against libel and defamation and why no good editor at Salon or anywhere else you would submit such a story would ever run it because they would then open themselves up to libel. In any case, any publication of any substance would have it vetted by an attorney first, who would remind them and you of the ethics of journalism and the law against defamation.

Michael

***MEANWHILE AT BEAST HEADQUARTERS***

MURPHY, NO-GOOD EDITOR OF THE BEAST: Here’s the exchange. Can I run it?

ARMY VETERAN & SUBSTANTIAL BEAST PUBLISHER, PAUL FALLON, ESQ: Of course you can. You’re not calling him a rapist. You’ ‘re just asking questions. This “party to the defamation” and ff the record” shit is nonsense. He spoke to you via email. You did not agree to keep it off the record. He had the option not to say anything at all, as in not respond to you. He did not avail himself of that option so it’s not a problem.

***AND BACK TO THE INTERVIEW!***

Quite right! The ethics of journalism! I’m all for learning about them. To clarify, you’re saying not to “print” this:

“I haven’t been charged with anything. An anonymous woman told another anonymous woman to tell PZ Myers that I raped her at some unspecified time in the past at some unspecified conference which was alleged reported to unspecified persons who allegedly covered up whatever it is I allegedly did.”

Correct?

And by “print” you mean the Internet, too, presumably, yes?

What about: “Thank you for the query, but I must decline. My attorneys are handling everything and I’m working on my next book.” & “No, they charge a lot by the hour so I don’t feel like paying for your interview. There’s nothing to say Ian. It’s a completely false charge. There’s no story here.”

Now I’m more confused! You first said “[i]t’s a completely false charge,” then you said “[you] haven’t been charged with anything.” And is “printing” those quotes–presumably even on the Internet–an ethical lapse of judgement? Would that be defamation? Is the law always the same as ethics? All very weighty questions, Michael, which I do not take lightly.

Ian

Ian. Stop. Nothing I have written to you can be quoted, not even that I thanked you for writing and declined to respond. I have nothing to say on the matter and I shouldn’t have even responded to you at all. Please stop writing me.

MS

Oh, OK. I’ll convey the meaning of the emails without directly quoting you, per your request. And I’ll now stop writing you. Best!

No, Ian, you cannot “convey the meaning of the emails.” I declined to be interviewed by you in the very first sentence I wrote. Anything after that cannot be part of your story, not even “conveying” what I did not say on the record or off the record or anything else. If you say anything beyond “Dr. Shermer declined to be interviewed for this story” I shall consider that intentional deception on your part and then you as a party to defamation.

Are you clear on my meaning?

MS

To be honest, no, I am not totally clear on your meaning.

You said: “I declined to be interviewed by you in the very first sentence I wrote. Anything after that cannot be part of your story…”

So that means anything after “Thank you for the query, but I must decline.” is not allowed to be quoted, or conveyed in any way. So “Thank you for the query, but I must decline.” can be quoted. Right? I am following you here?

But then you said “anything beyond ‘Dr. Shermer declined to be interviewed for this story’…” is not allowed. But you never said that! I can quote you saying that if you want, but referring to yourself in the third-person like that may damage your reputation. I think people consider that egotistical.

Also, since you never said “Dr. Shermer declined to be interviewed for this story’…” in any of our previous emails that means everything beyond “If you say anything beyond “Dr. Shermer declined to be interviewed for this story” I shall consider that intentional deception on your part and then you as a party to defamation. ”

That means I can quote the entire exchange save for the very last line: “Are you clear on my meaning?”

Dear Ian,You may not quote anything in any email I sent previously. Not a single word.

MS

Now I’m just absolutely baffled. You said I could quote the first line. Now it’s “[n]ot a single word.” Is this what your lawyers say? Now I can’t even say “Dr. Shermer declined to be interviewed for this story,” because I’d be quoting you? But I don’t want people to think I interviewed you–especially if you don’t want people to think I interviewed you! According to journalistic ethics, I had to ask, and I have say that I asked. Can I say “Dr. Shermer refused to talk to me?” And if I can, isn’t that sort of a lie? Or is it like a white lie, for the greater good?

***MEANWHILE AT BEAST HEADQUARTERS***

FALLON: Let’s hope that his cease and desist letter at least comes from his highly paid lawyers.

MURPHY: bwahamumumuumumumph!

HEADIE, THE BEAST HEAD: Where’s MAH medicine?!

SHERMER’S THUMB: You know where’s I’m pointing.

***AND NOW BACK TO THE INTERVIEW!***

Dear Michael,

OK!

I ran it by my lawyer, as you recommended, and we’re all set to run the full interview! Don’t worry, I’ll cross out the final line, per your request. Any words of wisdom to end it on an inspiring note, for the kids? Ok then! If I don’t hear from you, I’ll take your silence as a sign that you’re totally good with this interview happening to you (I certainly have no complaints).

And if I do hear a peep out of you, it’s because you just [ain't] understanding what’s happening here. It’s funny! Gotta laugh at life, right?

See, we’re having fun here. You need to relax, baby. Oh! One more thing: You said “anonymous” women accused you of “rape.” Do you mean they were associated or otherwise affiliated with the nefarious online hacktivist collective known as Anonymous?

Because Anonymous will fuck your shit up, I have read in Ohio. Good thing you’re not in Ohio!

The Internet is ablaze with yet another baseless conspiracy theory that only serves to distract from real cover-ups and issues of genuine significance – the hoax that NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden recently warned of a “solar flare killshot’ set to wipe out hundreds of millions of people in September.

Ablaze! It’s true. I’ve even seen the “Snowden” solar killshot story discussed with genuine concern on some of my “friends’” Facebook walls (note to self: stop accepting friend requests from every idiot who asks).

Our readers may remember that this “Snowden” is actually self-described psychonaut, and some-times BEAST contributor, Tyler Bass. At the time Bass revealed his jape, both here and at the Internet Chronicle, @EJosephSnowden had a mere 4,000 followers. As you can now see, he has 21,614… and counting.

The most brilliant bit of Bass’s “coup,” as he put it, is forcing Infowars to do some journalism, ironically, rather than pursuing their typical MO—swallowing/spewing any & every piece of stupid bullshit they come across/make up.

Well done, Mr. Bass. Infowars may never do journalism again.

Chapman: “I’m'a git that pasty [n-word].”

Speaking of dodgy journalism, Bass & Co. have also duped several outfits–including Reason.com (temporarily)–who reported that infamous leather-faced TV racist Dog the Bounty Hunter was in hot pursuit of the NSA PRISM whistle-blower:

Dog, a.k.a Duane Chapman, held a random press conference outside Hawaii’s Da Kine bail bonds, where he said “Sometimes you gotta bend the rules to save America, and if I can catch this traitor Snowden and bring him back to God’s side, then it’ll be worth the risk of a lifetime of hard labor in a Siberian gulag.”

This post was edited and updated to include Reason.com’s idiocy. Why am I telling you this?

]]>https://buffalobeast.com/fake-ed-snowden-trololos-the-internet/feed/0Murphy’s Law: Cliffs Notes Editionhttps://buffalobeast.com/murphys-law-cliffs-notes-edition/
https://buffalobeast.com/murphys-law-cliffs-notes-edition/#commentsMon, 29 Jul 2013 22:35:00 +0000Ian Murphyhttp://buffalobeast.com/?p=17702Some people on Twitter are wondering: Wha’ happen’? Well, since I’ve been writing about my ridiculous battle with the law since its inception, and it’s rather long, here’s the cheat sheet: July 24, 2011: The first day same-sex marriage was legal in New York State, an associate and I went to report on the National [...]]]>

Some people on Twitter are wondering: Wha’ happen’? Well, since I’ve been writing about my ridiculous battle with the law since its inception, and it’s rather long, here’s the cheat sheet:

July 24, 2011: The first day same-sex marriage was legal in New York State, an associate and I went to report on the National Organization for Marriage’s little hate-fest in downtown Buffalo. It was one of several rallies NOM had organized across the state. Naturally, I brought a dildo to use as a fake microphone. In total, I interviewed one guy using the prop. He chuckled, turned a bit red in the face, and walked away. That was it, dildo-wise.

About 20 minutes later, I was arrested for filming a cop. My camera was confiscated and erased. I managed to recover some of the video, including the same cop’s reaction to being videotaped by my associate, but sadly not when she freaked out on me.

I was charged with a few counts of disorderly conduct, disruption of a religious service, and: §240.26-1 Harassment in the Second Degree because I “did also follow officers and did attempt to video tape officers during the assembly.”

74 days later, the harassment charge was dropped and replaced with: §240.20-3 Disorderly Conduct – Abusive or Obscene Language or Gesture in Public Place because, you know, videotaping a cop isn’t illegal, and this photo exists:

The DA’s office blew up that photo to about 24″ x 36″ and the jury stared at it for the duration of my farcical trial. I asked if I could keep it. They said no and laughed at me. Two members of the church working with NOM that day testified that they saw me doing crazy things with the dildo-phone—while the arresting officer testified that I was on the other side of the street, that she never saw the dildo-phone, and that she purportedly cuffed me for using foul language. I was not. The jury’s verdict:

I was sentenced to 75 hours of community service. I scraped paint in an old theater for about 5 hours, got some shit in my eyes, hurt my back, so I said, “Fuck this!” and walked. In lieu of community service, I was then sentenced to 15 days in jail. I’ve already done 4.

My lawyer was able to stay the sentence pending the outcome of our appeal. That decision came down today: Denied. So I have until 5 pm tomorrow to turn myself in. Not totally sure if I’m going to, but I’m going to prepare for it anyway, so I need to finish up some other work and go grocery shopping for my mother.

A drunken BEAST publisher Paul Fallon semi-coherently reviews an obscure sci-fi film from the ’70s, talks “American Exceptionalism” and selfishness, and wonders what the damn kids are always doing on their phones.

]]>https://buffalobeast.com/its-a-racist-bird-its-a-profiling-plane-its/feed/0Murphy’s Law: “Camera out, dildo in” editionhttps://buffalobeast.com/murphys-law-camera-out-dildo-in-edition/
https://buffalobeast.com/murphys-law-camera-out-dildo-in-edition/#commentsWed, 17 Jul 2013 15:50:00 +0000Ian Murphyhttp://buffalobeast.com/?p=17622reviously in this seemingly endless legal saga, which began over two years ago when I was arrested for videotaping a cop at a National Organization for Marriage (NOM) anti-gay marriage rally in Buffalo, NY, my lawyer Paul Fallon successfully stayed my jail sentence pending the outcome of our appeal. I’ve already done four days of [...]]]>

Previously in this seemingly endless legal saga, which began over two years ago when I was arrested for videotaping a cop at a National Organization for Marriage (NOM) anti-gay marriage rally in Buffalo, NY, my lawyer Paul Fallon successfully stayed my jail sentence pending the outcome of our appeal.

Murphy on the lam?

I’ve already done four days of the fifteen-day sentence. If you behave, I hear, they let you out after ten. So all this effort just to save me from six days in prison. All this fucking hassle—the parking costs alone!—hardly seems worth it. But that’s what you get for having principles, repeatedly bashing your head against a brick wall.

Anyway, Fallon submitted the appeal brief some time ago, the DA submitted their response (which I couldn’t read without wanting to stab someone), and last Thursday were the oral arguments before Erie County Judge Kenneth F. Case. He’s a devastatingly handsome man—a virile, ageless figure whose calm, deliberative manner is that of a wise, older man. And he’s probably really good at golf. And, um, sailing. And doing pushups with cheerleaders on his back. And he’s strong enough to wrestle bears. And if justice weren’t his calling, he’d no-doubt have a promising career in rocket science, brain surgery, or high political office. Clearly, Judge Case is a God among men. Totally true.

Daire Irwin, Esq, has decided to tag along, for “closure,” he says. He’s currently representing several others who’ve been unlawfully arrested by the BPD’s premiere Brownshirt, officer Donna Donovan. She’s one fucked up lil’ fascist, with a well-established record of arresting folks, for no apparent reason.

Libertarian America wants union teachers hired and fired based solely on “merit,” some kind of performance-based system, but police are beyond reproach—first responders, heroes, a class of public employee we’ve chosen to worship, place on a pedestal. We fictionalize and romanticize them. Their main job is to carry out the tragic War on Drugs, to incarcerate the superfluous population—the black, brown, the supposed dregs of society. But I digress.

Mulling my chance of victory, I peer over at Daire’s tattered, overstuffed composition notebook, barely held together with duct tape and a rubber band, adorned with a circular, bright orange sticker which reads: “Free Bradley Manning”. That’s the kind of hopelessly sincere advocate of justice who’s on my side. I’m fucking doomed.

Manning might never see the light of day. He’s been held in conditions that amount to torture. If apprehended, Edward Snowden will face the same. Barret Brown, a journalist who was on my congressional campaign, is facing 100 years in jail for posting a link to hacked documents. It’s perfectly legal to hunt down and murder black teenagers—while a black woman who literally stood her ground against her abuser was sentenced to twenty years for firing a warning shot into a wall. And, of course, all the white-collar, mostly white-skinned bankers who wrecked the global economy, and continue to blatantly rig the system for profit (see: Libor and ISDAfix), will never see a courtroom. Ever. The Fourth Amendment’s been ground into meaningless dust, from the NSA to Stop and Frisk. Obama’s prosecuted more whistle-blowers than all other presidents combined. We have more people in jail than any other nation on Earth.

I’m not totally delusional. My case doesn’t rank among the above injustice. But it is indicative of this mad, mad system. What can you do? What you can: Bang your head against a brick wall.

“Was justice served in this case?” Fallon rhetorically asks Case, citing the precedent codified in People vs. Romero. “Because the weight of evidence does not support that it was.”

“Camera out, dildo in!” Fallon growls, describing how seventy-four days after I was charged with harassment, for following officers around with a video camera, it was dropped and replaced with a charge of disorderly conduct for public obscenity—based entirely on this photo:

I was found guilty of performance art

Between Fallon and Irwin, “Camera out, dildo in!” (our more honest version of “If the glove does not fit, you must acquit!”) was uttered nearly a dozen times. “Camera out, dildo in!” It became funnier with each iteration. “Camera out, dildo in!” By the last time Fallon said it, I had to put my head down on the table and hide my face. “Camera in, dildo out!” I could barely contain my laughter.

Fallon went over all the inconsistencies in the People’s case—how the lies of the lying piece of shit Roland Cercone contradict the police testimony, the video evidence, and common sense. That lying piece of shit liar says I was on one side of the street, going dildo-crazy, at the same time video shows me on the other, at the same time Donovan says I was calling her an “asshole.” During the trial, remember, she said that’s why she arrested me. (I’d like to think that’s the obvious “smoking gun” in our pending suit against the City of Buffalo, but this whole experience has taught me that the obvious ain’t always that obvious.)

The “People” were represented by Nicholas Texido—scare quotes because I’d like to think that actual people of New York believe in the importance of the First Amendment, the freedom of the press, freedom of expression, art, rights, and all that patriotic American stuff. Texido’s case rests mainly on the precedent of People vs. Weaver which states that, in order to satisfy the definition of disorderly conduct, one need only to create the “mere risk” of public disturbance, so the jury was right to convict me.

The Weavers in question were a newlywed couple whose marital bliss didn’t last very long. Still dressed in tuxedo and gown, they had quite the knock-down, drag-out argument in their hotel parking lot at three in the morning. No one in the hotel heard them, but according to the law—our so very arbitrary law—they satisfied the definition of disorderly conduct by creating the “mere risk,” the potential for public disturbance.

Texido claims my testimony alone, that I interviewed one guy with the dildo-phone, is enough to justify the jury’s decision.

Irwin countered with a point we tried making during the trial: It’s dangerous for the state or a jury to be in the business of deciding what’s “obscene,” what’s prurient to the point of public disturbance. If all that’s needed is to create the “mere risk” of public disturbance, why isn’t the National Organization for Marriage on trial? There they were, the first day that gay marriage was legal in the New York State, putting on a rally, voicing their opinion that gays are evil, that they’re going to burn in hell for all eternity, that they don’t deserve the right to marry, praying, and waving around a book that condones the brutal murder of homosexuals by stoning. Surely they’d created the “mere risk” of public disturbance with their hate-rally, their worship of a book in which “God” orders his followers to kill any man who lies with another man.

Their behavior—these God-fearing assholes—and their beliefs are morally repugnant, obscene in the eyes of many. Should they be charged with a crime? Of course not. We have something called the First Amendment—freedom of press, religion, expression, and all that patriotic American stuff.

But Texido says I was reckless because the NOM-tards “never want to see a dildo in their lives.” Yeah, OK.

Although appeal decisions are written, I half expected Case to rule right there on the spot, and to be hauled off to serve my remaining six days—which if my luck holds out will probably be eleven, the entire fifteen-day sentence. ‘Murphy’s Law” has turned out to be more prophetic than pun. But, much to my nervous surprise, Case said he’d give it some thought, and we’d have to return on July 29.

I wasn’t obligated to attend this hearing. Texido asked Case to make my presence mandatory at the next one, so they can cuff me on the spot. “We’ll cross that bridge when we come to it,” replied Case. I haven’t decided if I’m going. I dunno, but if I’m going to be jailed, again, for exercising my First Amendment rights, I don’t want to make it easy for the pig-fuckers.

Obviously, I’ll have to check in on my disabled mother, bring her food and medicine, mow the lawn, etc. from time-to-time, but I’m headed to Lamsville, USA. The State of New York has already wasted so much time and money prosecuting this farce. They can waste a little more hunting me down. Disorderly conduct isn’t even a misdemeanor. It’s a violation. Will they really come to my house? Stake out the local grocery store? My mother’s dermatologist? It seems impossible—an unrealistic joke, paranoia, obvious madness.

Fallon drinks an unknown quantity of box wine, rants about the rigged game called capitalism.

]]>https://buffalobeast.com/beast-publisher-says-things-volume-ii/feed/0Viewers unlike youhttps://buffalobeast.com/viewers-unlike-you/
https://buffalobeast.com/viewers-unlike-you/#commentsThu, 27 Jun 2013 07:25:31 +0000Ian Murphyhttp://buffalobeast.com/?p=17588This interview originally appeared at The Progressive. scar-nominated documentary filmmakers Carl Deal and Tia Lessin set out to discover how the unlimited political spending codified by Citizen United v. The FEC is altering democracy on the state level. What they learned instead was a bitter lesson about censorship when PBS refused to air their new [...]]]>

Oscar-nominated documentary filmmakers Carl Deal and Tia Lessin set out to discover how the unlimited political spending codified by Citizen United v. The FEC is altering democracy on the state level. What they learned instead was a bitter lesson about censorship when PBS refused to air their new movie.

I gave ’em a call.

Murphy: What the hell happened?

Lessin: I guess we barked up the wrong tree. We thought that public television was there to air divergent voices and to serve the public interest, and we found out that that’s not the case.

Deal: We started making a film looking at how the Citizens United decision was going to play out in the last election cycle. It was a new decision, nobody knew exactly how it was going to play out, and Wisconsin exploded just as we were getting under way.

So, we were following the drama in Wisconsin, and we’d been working for about a year before getting involved with ITVS—the Independent Television Service—which is a funding branch for PBS. They receive a budget of tens of millions of taxpayer dollars to support the work of independent filmmakers.

They came in as production partners, green-lit our film for ITVS funding, and we worked with them back and forth over the course of six or eight months. Everything was great. They loved our approach to the film, they loved that we were featuring the voices and experiences of Republican voters in the heartland to tell this story, that we had a very much nonpartisan approach to this, which satisfied one of the major requirements of public broadcasting. And they liked what they saw when we showed them a two-hour-and-fifteen-minute rough cut in October. Fast-forward a month, we get the great news that we’re accepted to Sundance.

And then the shit hit the fan.

We tried to figure out what had happened between the time they cheered us on with our rough cut and the time we got into Sundance.

Lessin: We learned that David Koch—and it’s no secret, it’s on the WNET website—was a trustee and a major donor to WNET and WGBH, which are two flagship PBS stations. What we learned from the Jane Mayer article in the New Yorker is that WNET was anticipating a seven-figure donation from David Koch at that same time that Alex Gibney made a film called “Park Avenue” that contrasted David Koch’s lifestyle with folks who live on Park Avenue in the Bronx. WNET aired that film but they allowed David Koch, or Koch Industries, to add a disclaimer to their broadcast. And they also did something unusual, they organized a roundtable after the broadcast, this sort of counterprogramming, and they didn’t include the filmmaker. They were basically trying to mollify Koch after this very critical program.

In addition to that, WNET president Neal Shapiro came down hard on ITVS, the unit of public television that either funded or curated the Gibney film. So as a result of that threat that Shapiro made to ITVS, ITVS killed the funding for our film that they’d commissioned.

The first thing they did was call us up and told us we had to take “Koch” out of the title of the film, and we had to de-emphasize the Kochs in the film. Of course, they didn’t tell us why exactly. They also basically said they wouldn’t advocate for this film for national PBS broadcast unless we made the major, specified changes. In the end, they just pulled their support altogether.

Murphy: Oh, wow. You didn’t know about this until the New Yorker article came out?

Lessin: In multiple conversations with executives over at ITVS we were able to put some pieces together but, yes, there were revelations in Mayer’s article that we had no clue about: the Shapiro phone call, the machinations behind the scenes regarding the “Park Avenue” film, that Koch not only pulled his donation, but that he resigned from the board. His name disappeared from the website while that article was being written.

But we knew that the people at ITVS were scared shitless about something and someone. And we presumed, but we weren’t sure if it was Koch himself making phone calls. As the story showed, Koch didn’t even have to pick up the phone to essentially have a big impact over programming decisions over at public television. All he had to do was wave his wallet.

Lessin: Absolutely. If this was the kind of influence David Koch had by dint of just making contributions and being on the board of two stations, imagine if he actually owned all these regional newspapers.

Murphy: The ACLU said Citizens United was all about the First Amendment. Why do you two hate freeze-peach?

Deal: I don’t know. Why do we hate free speech, Tia?

Lessin: The point is that the decision, and as we show in the film, the Citizens United group is a rightwing political group, and they claim to be exercising free speech but what they’re really trying to do is to inject more corporate money, and money from the wealthiest among us to win elections. And that’s what “Hillary: The Movie” was all about. “Hillary: The Movie” was essentially a campaign ad, and they created the whole thing to shoot down campaign finance reform.

That’s what led us on this journey with this film. We were really trying to see what the Citizens United ruling was and how it impacted our local communities, and we thought the best way to do that was to see how it impacted the states. Twenty-two states, in the wake of Citizens United, lifted their ban on corporate contributions, and we went to one of those states with one of the most longstanding bans, and the best transparency there was around these kinds of donations. And since they rendered that decision, it nullified all that.

Deal: It’s almost like what happened with public television. Nobody told them what they had to do. They sort of self-censored because they were fearing a backlash. In Wisconsin and many of these other states after Citizens United came down, they just said, “Screw it. We’re going to stop enforcing our ban on corporate contributions and stop enforcing our disclosure rules because none of it means anything anyhow.” And people started doing that immediately all across the states.

So we kind of feel like, in the bigger picture, it’s really much more important to understand what’s happening at the state level. It’s hard to evaluate the impact of Citizens United had on the last federal election because everyone was outspending everyone else. But on the state level I think that the Democrats are having a much harder time competing with the presence of these outside groups. And the only stalwart the liberals have is organized labor. And they already can’t compete with the corporate money. One thing Tia and I learned reporting the story of the film: We came to understand what Scott Walker was up to in Wisconsin with his attacks on collective bargaining. It was a very cynical political strategy to kneecap the political opposition, to cut off one of their sources of funding.

Murphy: It’s kind of brilliant, in an evil sort of way.

Lessin: And you know, it’s too bad there’s no honesty about that. It’s so dishonest to cloak it as a financial crisis in the state of Wisconsin, when it’s about defunding the political voice of working people.

Another thing I’d say is that is sort of ironic is a film that looked at Citizens United—supposedly a decision about speech in America, and political speech in America—gets censored and shut down by public television. Our speech was curtailed, but also the speech of the people we capture in the film.

Deal: Republicans in the heartland.

Lessin: They can’t talk either, through our film because of the money of somebody like David Koch.

Murphy: As filmmakers could you speak to the power of propaganda, about crafting a narrative and making people believe something.

Lessin: We can talk about what we saw on the ground in Wisconsin. There were millions of dollars spent that Tim Phillips from Americans for Prosperity acknowledges was spent on behalf of Scott Walker and his so-called reforms. Americans for Prosperity was, of course, founded and bankrolled by the Kochs.

They’re all about trying to influence public opinion. Even if Scott Walker hadn’t won, they’re not only interested in supporting candidates, or defeating candidates, with these ads. They’re interesting in changing the public opinion about certain issues. Whether it’s climate change or minimum wage or privatizing education, there’s a very extreme rightwing agenda that’s deployed in these ads, and no matter who wins, the public loses because the terms of debate are totally skewed, especially at a time when investigative reporting is not funded, our best newspapers and broadcasters of investigative reporting aren’t dong that much anymore. The hard questions aren’t being asked, and these ads skate by, and people rely on them as a source of information. And they shouldn’t be. They’re pieces of propaganda.

We saw that in Wisconsin. There were just lies being broadcast. They don’t receive rigorous fact-checking, and they’re also a huge source of money for these television broadcasters, so you have to argue that the television broadcasters don’t have much of an interest in exposing the lies. I mean, CBS had a record year last year, revenue-wise. And a lot of that was the infusion of money from Super PACS. I’m not a conspiracy theorist. Just look at the numbers.

Murphy: It’s not a wild conspiracy theory. So what’s next?

Lessin: We’re going to do everything that we can to call attention to this. We think that right now the possibility that the Kochs are going to buy these newspapers is a very scary one, and we need to talk about our experience to inform that conversation, to show what happens when people like the Kochs mix with the media. And if they do buy those papers, the role of PBS and public media is even more important because we need those outlets to be truth tellers, and we’re going to keep holding public television responsible. We’re going to encourage the public funding of media, so high-dollar donors don’t have that kind of influence. And we’re going to get out there in any way to fight against the censorship of the voices in our film.

Murphy: Will I be able to buy it online soon?

Lessin: Well, because we had this huge bit of funding pulled, you can’t buy it tomorrow, but it’s going to available in the fall. We’ll hopefully have it streaming at some point soon, maybe even have it going into theaters, but were currently scrambling to get this film out there.

Murphy: Has the smear campaign against you two already begun? The reason I bring it up was because I was in Robert Greenwald’s “Koch Brother’s Exposed,” and they really went after that guy. They devoted a website to him, there were ads all over the net. Be ready for that.

Lessin: I say: “Bring it on.” We’re documentary filmmakers—nonfiction storytellers. We documented what we saw happening in Wisconsin and elsewhere. We’re proud of the work we made. We think it’s a really important story. Bring it on, Charles and David Koch.